JUDGMENT B. PANIGRAHI, J.— This revision is directed against the appellate judgment/order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sunder¬garh, in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1992, confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bonai, in 2 (c) CC Case No. 135 of 1990 under Sec. 16 (1) (a) and (c) read with Sec. 7 (iii) and (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and also Rule 50 of the Rules framed thereunder. 2. The factual matrix as narrated in the judgment of the Courts below is as follows : On 21.2.1990 at about 9. A.M. the Food Inspector, Sundergarh (PW.1) had visited the grocery shop of the accused-petitioner who was having his business in the name and style of the “Agarwala Store” situated at Koida market. While P.W.1, the Food Inspector, reached the petitioner’s shop, the petitioner in hot haste ran away from the shop without allowing the Food Inspector to draw sample or purchase food articles. The Food Inspector frantically searched for witnesses from that locality, but when no one was prepared to be witness to seizure, he, therefore, invited P.Ws.2 and 3 to the spot. All of them had waited for a long time, but when the petitioner did not come,they had no other option but to leave the shop. In the result, no sample could be drawn, nor any food article could be purchased. P.W.1 suspected Arhar Dal and Mustard Oil might have been adul¬terated. After coming to the office, he had then sent notice in Form No. IV to the petitioner for production of licence to deal with food articles. Notwithstanding receipt of notice, when the petitioner did not produce the licence. Prosecution Report was filed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bonai, which was registered as 2(c) CC case No. 135 of 1990 under Sec. 16 (1) (a) and (c) read with Sec. 7 (iii) and (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 3. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and framed charges against the accused petitioner. The plea of the accused was one of denial. During trial, the prosecu¬tion examined three witnesses and certain documents were exhibit¬ed for the prosecution. The defence has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. 3. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and framed charges against the accused petitioner. The plea of the accused was one of denial. During trial, the prosecu¬tion examined three witnesses and certain documents were exhibit¬ed for the prosecution. The defence has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. The trial Court after elaborate discussion of the evidence on record came to a finding that the prosecution was not able to prove that the articles in question were adulterated, inasmuch as no sample could be collected from the shop of the petitioner. However, the trial Court on the basis of evidence held that the accused has committed offence under Sec. 7 (iii) for selling food articles without licence, punishable under Sec. 16(1)(a)(ii) and also under Sec. 16 (1) (c) of the Preven¬tion of Food Adulteration Act for having prevented the Food Inspector (P.W.1) from collecting sample of food articles in question and accordingly convicted him and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. to undergo further R.I. for one month on each count with further direction that the sentences are to run concurrently. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge having confirmed the order of the trial Court, the present revision has been filed. 4. Sec. 10 of the Act empowers a Food Inspector to take samples of any article of food from any person selling such article. Sec. 11 provides that whenever the Food Inspector takes a sample of food for analysis, he shall give notice in writing then and there of his intention to have it so analysed to the person from whom he has taken the sample. In this particular case, it is no doubt true that the prosecution was unable to prove that the food articles in question were adulterated, as there was no such occasion since the accused petitioner allegedly ran away from the shop leaving a small child there. Mr. Kanungo, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has strongly urged that there are ample evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner had not run away, nor he was the owner of the shop. However, in view of the finding arrived at by both the Courts below, I am unable to accept the contention that the petitioner was not the owner of the shop. 5. Mr. However, in view of the finding arrived at by both the Courts below, I am unable to accept the contention that the petitioner was not the owner of the shop. 5. Mr. Kanungo raised another contention that since no independent witnesses having been cited nor examined and P.Ws.2 and 3 were interested in the prosecution as they are official witnesses, no credence should be attached to their evidence. I am not in a position to agree with such contention since there is evidence by the prosecution through P.W.1 that he searched for local witnesses, but none of them agreed to come to the shop and witness the incident. In that event, there was no other option left to P.W.1, but to call other official witnesses to the shop. Accordingly, it cannot be said that there was any infraction of law in citing official witnesses. Moreover, nothing has been brought out from cross-examination of P.Ws.2 and 3 that they were hostile towards the accused save and except that they were officers. Accordingly, their evidence cannot be discarded only on the ground that being official witnesses they were interested in the prosecution. The cumulative effect of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 would suggest that the petitioner was not present in the shop at that time and he went away from the shop leaving a boy. It, therefore, follows that the prosecution could not prove that the food articles stored in the shop of the petitioner were adulterated. In this context it is next to be considered whether there has been any violation of Rule 50 alleged to have been made by the petitioner. Since there is no proof that the petitioner had stored articles of food exposing for sale for human consump¬tion, infraction of Rule 50 or for that matter Sec. 7 (iii) has, therefore, receded to the back-ground and no conviction can also lie for violation of Sec. 7 (iii) of the Act or infraction of Rule 50 of the Rules framed under the Act. 6. It is to be noticed whether prosecution was able to bring home the charge under Sec. 16 (1)(c) of the Act. Sec. 16(1) (c) of the Act reads as under : “ 16. Penalties : (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-sec. 6. It is to be noticed whether prosecution was able to bring home the charge under Sec. 16 (1)(c) of the Act. Sec. 16(1) (c) of the Act reads as under : “ 16. Penalties : (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-sec. (IA), if any person- ** ** ** (c) prevents a food inspector from taking a sample as authorised by this Act; ** ** ** he shall in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of Sec. 6 be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees.” In this case, there are ample evidence that after arrival of P.W.1, the Food Inspector and immediately following which he demanded the accused to sell Arhar Dal and Mustard Oil, the petitioner hastily ran away from the shop without affording any opportunity to P.W.1 to purchase the food articles. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot escape punishment under Sec. 16(1)(c) of the Act. The Act authorises the Court in certain cases although punishment prescribed is six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- to lessen it to imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500/-. The case was registered in the year 1990. Ten years in the mean¬time have elapsed and no instance has been brought by the prose¬cution that the petitioner has committed same nature of offence subsequently. Therefore, in such situation, I reduce the sentence and direct that the petitioner shall suffer 3 (three) months' simple imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) in default, to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. The order conviction and sentence passed under Sec. 16 (1)(a)(ii) of the Act is vacated. The Criminal Revision is allowed in part. Revision allowed in part.